Doug,

I have to disagree with you that the Olympics are good for the host cities. That was my point. They always cost megabucks for all the facilities (which are usually so shoddy they're condemned or torn down within a few years or they cost another fortune in upkeep) and the projected attendence never comes up to what the IOC promises. Tokyo (1964) was "assured" of a million visitors; they got fewer than 100,000. The organizers were giving tickets away just to get enough spectators to keep from being embarrassed when the TV cameras panned the stands.

Montreal is still paying for the mess they were left with and I don't think you'd get a lot of enthusiasm for another run at it from the people in Atlanta.

david